Talk:Systems
Coral Cluster? Does anyone have any information on the Coral Cluster listed here? I've never heard of it, and certianly haven't found it. Never heard of it, pretty sure it doesnt exist. Dtemps123 03:06, March 4, 2010 (UTC) Missions/Assignments on Caleston? Why is Caleston bolded and italicized? There don't seem to be any missions or assignments on it. Rtl42 09:34, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :Likely because of its involvement in the plot. There are no assignments or missions there, but everyone winds up there in ME2. Well, everyone who progresses in the storyline. I'd surmise this is the same reason the Omega 4 Relay is bolded and italicized. After all, there are also no missions or assignments on the Omega 4 Relay. SpartHawg948 09:48, December 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm going to side with Rtl42 on this one. I believe the Omega 4 Relay is bolded and italized because you have to use it in the course of the plot, launching the suicide mission. So you could argue that there is/are mission(s) associated with the location. However I don't see how you wind up at Caleston specifically. You do end up in the Balor System after the mission aboard the Collector Ship, but I can't see how you wind up specifically at Caleston. You could easily say you wind up Bres or Cernunnos, both of which are also located in the Balor System. I also can't see how it plays a much role in the plot. If the content from ME went in like it was supposed to, then I'd have to say yes, but given its minor plot role, I have to say that while the Bold and Italics are justified on the Omega 4 Relay, while they aren't on Caleston. Lancer1289 17:48, December 4, 2010 (UTC) :::But you don't actually do anything on the Omega 4 Relay. I'm afraid I'll have to insist. If we unbold/un-italicize Caleston, we have to do it to the Omega 4 Relay too. The Relay is a plot device, nothing more. You don't actually go there to do missions and assignments. If we bold and italicize the Omega 4 Relay, we need to bold and italicize every relay in a plot-specific system or cluster, particularly the other relay in the Sahrabarik system. After all, you have to use them in the course of the plot, and have to use them for the suicide mission. SpartHawg948 20:46, December 4, 2010 (UTC) ::::I see, perhaps you'll have to refresh my memory, because in the lead up to Investigate the Collector Ship, I can't remember whether the Collector Ship is in the vicinity of Caleston or not. (You're forced into going there straight from the conversation with TIM, so I can't remember its location in the galaxy.) Rtl42 03:44, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::As you are escaping the Collector ship, it's charging its weapon, preparing to destroy the Normandy. Once back aboard the Normandy, Shep demands that EDI get them out of there, and when EDI asks where to go, Shep yells "Anywhere!", or something to that effect. And that's how you wind up at Caleston. SpartHawg948 03:52, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Actually it's Joker saying anywhere, and you actually wind up in the Balor system, you don't wind up in orbit of Caleston specificially. Lancer1289 03:58, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::::It was indeed Joker. Though, as it seems to not be getting mentioned, I'll note that there has as yet been no response to my larger point about the relevance of the Omega 4 Relay. If no change to the current article is felt necessary, then this is fine. If, however, any changes are proposed, I'll be looking for some sort of response. SpartHawg948 06:04, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Oops forgot about the Omega 4 Relay bit and I know you don't like that any more than I do. Anyway I feel that the O4 Relay has much, much more significance in the plot than any other relay, and relays are already italized along with Fuel Depots. The main reason that keeps sticking out in my mind is while yes you have to use any relay over the course of the plot, you acutally have to follow the same sequence as you would if you are going on a mission or assignment. Travel to the relay, go into orbit, then start. Granted there is no scanning involved, but considering you have to go to the relay to initiate the suicide mission, like you would any mission/assignment planet like Joab or Alchera, I feel that the unbolding and unitalizing of Claeston is justified while the O4 relay is not and those planets mentioned are bold and italized. Caleston doesn't have one assignment or mission, while even on the Galaxy Map, it points to the Omega 4 Relay, like any other mission/assignment planet, to initiate the mission. Lancer1289 06:18, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::::But bolding isn't based on subjective standards like plot significance. Standards are, and should be kept, objective. Plot significance differs from person to person, while objective standards like "Are there missions or assignments available/completable there?" And for the Omega 4 Relay, the answer to that question is no. The Omega 4 Relay doesn't have one mission or assignment. Not one. Nada. And the Galaxy Map will continue to point to prominent sites regardless of whether or not there are missions or assignments there. Omega and Illium don't disappear off the Galaxy Map once you complete all the missions and assignments there. The reason you have to, as you say, go to the Omega 4 Relay and orbit it before using it is not comparable to a mission or assignment planet. You do it for the Relay for plot reasons. So you don't die and such. So yeah, I'm going to have to insist. Obviously the Omega 4 Relay should stay italicized, but it should not be bolded, certainly not for subjective reasons such as plot significance. SpartHawg948 06:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Ok I've been tossing around arguments for the last twenty minutes or so and the only one that I can present is this one. The reason it should still be bolded is because you have to use this specific relay to start a specific mission which is also the only way to get to it. There is no other way to get to the Collector Base apart from the O4 Relay so you could argue that it does have the Suicide mission associated with it due to the nature of you having to use it to get to the mission site. Now, I know that you have to use a relay to get to any mission or assignment, like you have to use the relay in the Tasale system to get to Illium and its missions and assignments. However, you can also get to Illium from any other cluster, usually by transit, but you can get to Illium from any other part of the Galaxy. The only way to access the suicide mission and the Collector Base is using the O4 Relay, and because of that, as it is the launch point of a mission, unlike any other Relay, which is just used to access the mission/assignment, I fell that it should still be bolded. Now, you could argue that any relay could be the launching point of a mission/assignment, but I counter with that the O4 relay is the single and only way to access the mission, while you can access missions/assignments from other relays and "launch" them from any point in the galaxy. The O4 relay is however the only point where you can access the Suicide Mission, you can't get to Collector Space without going through it, or Launching the mission from that point. Well that's the best I got left, and if that doesn't do it, then my magazine is empty. However I hope that you can at least see my point. And this probably sounded much better in my head. ::::::Failing to convince you that the O4 relay should remain bolded, can we at least agree to unbold the Relay and unbold and unitalize Caleston? Lancer1289 07:01, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :::::::But the "you can only get there from ___" argument doesn't apply to the Omega 4 Relay itself, does it? No, it applies to the Collector Base. You make much of the supposed distinction, how the Omega 4 Relay is the "launch point" for the suicide mission, while any other relay "is just used to access the mission/assignment". This is merely calling one concept by two different names. After all, the Omega 4 "launch point" "is just used to access the mission/assignment", is it not? So which is it? Are all relays launch points, or are they all "just used to access the mission/assignment", including the Suicide Mission? So yeah, I'll be fine with unbolding and unitalicizing Caleston, as long as the Omega 4 Relay also gets unbolded and treated the same as any other Relay using logical and objective standards. SpartHawg948 07:12, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well I guess this ends this discussion. I'll unbold the O4 relay and unbold and unitalize Caleston. Lancer1289 07:17, December 5, 2010 (UTC) It is done, however I found the reason that Caleston was bold and italized, it was because of the template. I found that Lethe, which is a moon of Mnemosyne was also bolded and italized. Lethe also has no missions or assignments so I had to add a land paramater to the Moon template and adjust several cluster templates to accomidate it. Funny thing, most already had the paramater for the land part included. So I've unbolded the Omega 4 Relay and fixed the problem with the template. Lancer1289 07:40, December 5, 2010 (UTC) :A bit late to the party (thanks for the recap of the escape from the ship, btw!), but I was wondering, how about a compromise: only italicize the Omega 4 relay, but then next to it, add (Collector Base). This way, the standard for mission/assignment notation is followed, but the plot relevance of the Omega 4 relay is conveyed by the "(Collector Base)" link next to it. Rtl42 13:51, December 5, 2010 (UTC) ::Um yeah the problem I have with that is that the Collector Base isn't in the same system, let alone the same cluster. Clusters and systems are listed by what planets, moons, asteroids, and whatever else is in the system, not things that are linked to them, which one could argue is the whole galaxy. I don't think we should make an exception for this because it is very clear that the Base is not in the Omega Nebula and therefore shouldn't be listed there based on the standards we already have. I think we can all agree on that, I hope. I mean the Base doesn't orbit the Omega 4 Relay like Caleston orbits Cernunnos. Lancer1289 18:47, December 5, 2010 (UTC) Interference Because of the collapsed and hidden tables, parts of the contents can't be clicked on. For example, I can't click on anything between the Maroon Sea and the Sentry Omega links... Not really a problem, just an annoyance. Tanooki1432 23:43, February 15, 2012 (UTC) :Look for the small white buttons with a box and arrow on the right side of the page. Clicking them will expand the cut-off tables to full width. We did have a solution to the cut-off problem in the works, but it hasn't been implemented yet. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:58, February 15, 2012 (UTC) ::The problem isn't with the tables themselves, it's with the table of contents. Tanooki1432 00:11, February 16, 2012 (UTC) Systems without Missions or Assignments Why was my change reverted? The statement "Each system contains at least one location you can travel to..." is demonstrably false, so I changed it to "Most systems contain..." Each game has at least one system that does not contain a location you can travel to. In ME, it's the Athens system in the Artemis Tau cluster, a fact that's noted on the linked page. ME2 and ME3 both have several such systems, one example of which is Ma-at in the Far Rim, in both games. Jbusnengo (talk) 23:30, July 22, 2013 (UTC) :Sorry about the confusion, when I was typing the edit summary for the revert I accidentally hit enter before I could finish it. I reverted the edit because "travel to" is not the same thing as "land on", "board", or "dock". All systems in ME games to date contain at least one object that can be traveled to, be it a planet, moon, space station, fuel depot, mass relay, or whatever else, even if the player cannot necessarily land on, board, or dock with those objects. -- Commdor (Talk) 23:37, July 22, 2013 (UTC) ::While you do have a valid point, using 'travel' in this way feels like the equivalent of saying that one travels to Canada when flying over it on the way from Alaska to the lower 48. That said, the rest of the sentence implies that 'travel to' is being used as a synonym for 'land on' or 'dock with'. The use of 'planet' in the singular is more consistent with the fact that most systems have one (and only one) planet you can land on, rather than the fact that all but a handful of systems have multiple planets. Also, 'a moon' is preceded by 'or' rather than 'and'. This makes sense in the context that certain systems have a moon you can land on but no planets you can land on. On the other hand, by definition, you can't have a moon without a planet, so it doesn't make sense to say that a system has planet(s) or a moon. Finally, if the sentence does use 'travel' in the sense you suggest, it would be a largely redundant additional definition of the term 'system'. The first sentence in the paragraph already defines the term 'system', and it would probably be better to just add ships, stations and moons to that definition, rather than to have this separate sentence. Although now that I consider it, the definition of a system in Mass Effect is problematic, considering that we have one without a star (The Sea of Storms) and at least three without planets (The Sea of Storms, Raheel-Leyya, and Anadius). Jbusnengo (talk) 00:14, July 23, 2013 (UTC) :::I've attempted to clarify the intro paragraph. I don't want the intro to define systems by a feature (objects that can be boarded/docked with/landed on) that only some of them contain; since this article is a list of all known systems identified across ME media, it should use general descriptors. Is the current text acceptable? -- Commdor (Talk) 05:19, July 23, 2013 (UTC) ::::Looks good to me. Elseweyr (talk) 09:40, July 23, 2013 (UTC) :::::Does the phrase "that the player can travel to" actually add anything useful? You addressed the definition issue that I mentioned, but my original issue remains. Jbusnengo (talk) 12:40, July 23, 2013 (UTC)